LaPointe v. Quarterman

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by James Thomas LaPointe. It is recommended that Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (dm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JAMES THOMAS LaPOINTE,
Petitioner,
V.
RICK THALER,1
Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal JusticeCorrectional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-12-CA-089-SS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Before the Court is Petitioner’s Application
for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document 1). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has
paid the appropriate filing fee. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that Petitioner’s
application for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A.

Petitioner’s Criminal History
According to Petitioner, the Director has custody of him pursuant to a judgment and sentence

of the 368th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. Petitioner was convicted by a jury
of one count of aggravated kidnapping, one count of assault-family violence (second offense), and

Although Petitioner named Nathaniel Quarterman as Respondent, Rick Thaler, the current
Correctional Institutions Division Director, is the proper respondent and will be substituted as such.
1

three counts of aggravated sexual assault. LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. His
petition for writ of certiorari was denied on November 5, 2007. LaPointe v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 544
(2007). Petitioner also challenged his conviction in three state applications for habeas corpus relief,
filed on September 8, 2008. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the applications on
January 6, 2010. Ex parte LaPointe, Appl. Nos. 73,063-01; -02; -03.
B.

Petitioner’s Grounds for Relief
Petitioner raises four grounds for relief: (1) The trial court abused its discretion; (2) he

received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) e received ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel; and (4) the prosecutor is guilty of misconduct.
II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A.

Statute of Limitations
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) establishes a one-

year statute of limitations for state inmates seeking federal habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d). That section provides, in relevant part:
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of–
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State
action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is
removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

2

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized
by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme
Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or
other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending
shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
B.

Application
Petitioner’s conviction became final, at the latest, on November 6, 2007, when the Supreme

Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. At the time Petitioner filed his state applications on
September 8, 2008, only 57 days remained of the one-year limitations period. The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals denied Petitioner’s state applications on January 6, 2010. Accordingly, Petitioner
had until March 10, 2010, to timely file his federal application. Petitioner did not execute his federal
application until January 20, 2012, almost two years after the expiration of the limitations period.
The record does not reflect that any unconstitutional state action impeded Petitioner from
filing for federal habeas corpus relief prior to the end of the limitations period. Furthermore,
Petitioner has not shown that he did not know the factual predicate of his claims earlier. Finally, the
claims do not concern a constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court within the last year
and made retroactive to cases on collateral review.
III. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with
prejudice as time-barred.

3

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding “unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c) (1)(A). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, effective
December 1, 2009, the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters
a final order adverse to the applicant.
A certificate of appealability may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court fully explained
the requirement associated with a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” in
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). In cases where a district court
rejected a petitioner’s constitutional claims on the merits, “the petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
or wrong.” Id. “When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without
reaching the petitioner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the petitioner
shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.
In this case, reasonable jurists could not debate the dismissal of the Petitioner’s section 2254
petition on substantive or procedural grounds, nor find that the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003)
(citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court shall not
issue a certificate of appealability.
4

V. OBJECTIONS
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections.
Battles v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report
shall bar that party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-153, 106 S. Ct.
466, 472-74 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report and
Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 1st day of February, 2012.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5